A92138:1924
The divine right of church-government and excommunication
The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peaceable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justified, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examined; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peacable dispute for the perfection of the holy scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the Service-book is justifi'd, the six books of Tho: Erastus against excommunication are briefly examin'd; with a vindication of that eminent divine Theod: Beza against the aspersions of Erastus, the arguments of Mr. William Pryn, Rich: Hooker, Dr. Morton, Dr. Jackson, Dr. John Forbes, and the doctors of Aberdeen; touching will-worship, ceremonies, imagery, idolatry, things indifferent, an ambulatory government; the due and just powers of the magistrate in matters of religion, and the arguments of Mr. Pryn, in so far as they side with Erastus, are modestly discussed. To which is added, a brief tractate of scandal ... / By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Published by authority.
London: printed by John Field for Christopher Meredith, 1646
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Hence it is clear; we may not do a less, nor counsel another to commit a less sin, to eschew a greater; as the Jesuits wickedly teach. So Tannerus, so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum, a scandal that a Christian may hinder another to fall in, and yet he permitteth him to fall in it. But God hath a prerogative to permit sinful scandals, men have no such power, when they are obliged to hinder it. The divinity of others seemeth better to me, who deny that the least venial should be committed to eschew a greater sin.
Hence it is cleare; we may not doe a lesse, nor counsell another to commit a lesse sinne, to eschew a greater; as the Jesuites wickedly teach. So Tannerus, so Turrianus and others who make a scandalum permissum, a scandall that a Christian may hinder another to fall in, and yet he permitteth him to fall in it. But God hath a prerogative to permit sinfull scandals, men have no such power, when they are obliged to hinder it. The divinite of others seemeth better to me, who deny that the least veniall should be committed to eschew a greater sinne.
6. Rule. There is a principle obligation, a less principle, a least principle. Hence these three degrees issue from love, 1. God▪ ⟨p. 84⟩12. Our selves, 3. Our Neighbour: The love of God is most principle, and is the measure of the love of our selves: the love of our self is less principal, then the love of God, and so the obligation less. I am to make away, life and all things, yea eternal glory as divided from holiness, and as it includeth only happiness, rather ere I sin against God▪ The obligation to care for my own salvation, is more principal, then my obligation to care for the salvation of my Brother: for the love of my self is the measure and rule of the love of my Neighbour. Now because the obligation of caring for the soul of my brother is only secondary, in compare of the obligation of caring for my own salvation, I am not to sin my self, or sinfully to omit any thing that is commanded me in a positive precept, to prevent the sin of my brother Yet hence it doth not follow, that a positive Precept is more excellent, then the law of Nature, which is (Thou shalt not murder, nor scandalize him for whom Christ died.) Because though to care for the soul of my brother be of the law of nature simpliciter, yet is a secondary obligation and may cease and yield, to a stronger obligation that tieth me more principally to care, for my own soul for though the Command be positive, yet knowingly to sin, by a sinful omission, is no less a destroying of my own soul, and so of the law of nature, in a higher obligation, then the other is.